Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Sat, 11 September 2021 01:52 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B7E23A2A0B for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 18:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t6U0KYTCTSFS for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 18:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D100F3A2A0C for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 18:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4H5wfx21vsz67NrY for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 09:50:17 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemm100003.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.68) by fraeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.8; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 03:52:25 +0200
Received: from dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.56) by dggpemm100003.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.68) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.8; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 09:52:23 +0800
Received: from dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.56]) by dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.56]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.008; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 09:52:23 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>, "'Joel M. Halpern'" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6
Thread-Index: AQHXo0SK2QJ436DHw0udUuKGXRCjnKuY9ZwAgAUgZIA=
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 01:52:23 +0000
Message-ID: <31f16f0b79d44374b3d42336abd16af6@huawei.com>
References: <d060f258-4e7d-51a8-2ced-69cfe2daa31f@joelhalpern.com> <06fb01d7a461$217a86e0$646f94a0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <06fb01d7a461$217a86e0$646f94a0$@com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.130]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3CUTGWyqxBD6HreAicUSbf3W7bI>
Subject: Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 01:52:35 -0000

Hi Chairs,

After a long-time discussion and many contributions have been made to the topic,  I believe we have get the point that we should step forward to adopt the CSID draft, therefore, I fully agree with the CSID authors' POV.

Many thanks for your work, it MUST be difficult for you :)
But I still believe that we can address the tough tasks very soon as long as we can still move forward.

Thank you again for the excellent work and respect,
Cheng



-----Original Message-----
From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Weiqiang Cheng
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:25 AM
To: 'Joel M. Halpern' <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

Dear Chairs,

Many thanks for your hard working. 

We are happy to see that the CSID draft has significant interest to be adopted as a WG document. 

Regarding the dataplane, the authors believe that the CSID draft contains only one dataplane solution with two different flavors[1]: NEXT-CSID-FLAVOR and REPLACE-CSID-FLAVOR, rather than two dataplane solutions.

Both the flavors are defined based on the SRv6 data plane(one data plane), and the SIDs with these two flavors can be encoded in a single SRH just like we can encode PSP Flavor SIDs and USD flavor SIDs together in a SRH.

The inter-op test of CSIDs had been done almost one year ago[2], and everything was OK. 

Furthermore, the mechanism defined in the draft has been stable and mature.

With the consensus, the authors hope WG can consider to adopt the CSID draft.

Best regards,
Weiqiang
on behalf of CSID authors

[1]. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8986#section-4.16
[2].
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-co
mpression-02#section-11



-----邮件原件-----
发件人: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Joel M. Halpern
发送时间: 2021年9月7日 01:27
收件人: spring@ietf.org
主题: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

Our thanks to the working group members for speaking up clearly.  There is a rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane solution to compressing segment routing over IPv6.

As chairs, there are some related observations we need to make.
There appears to be significant interest in using the framework in the CSID draft for addressing the above.

However, before we issue a call for adoption on that, the chairs would like to understand how the working group wants to solve a technical problem.  The CSID draft contains two dataplane solutions.  The above rough consensus is for one dataplane solution.  Does the working group want to choose one?  Do the authors want to suggest that one of the two is the one we should standardize, and get working group agreement?
Should we adopt the document, with a note indicating the problem, and solve the problem afterwards?  (That itself does not solve the problem, it merely kicks it down the road.) Do folks see another means to avoid putting the WG in conflict with itself?

As a loosely related side node, the chairs will also observe that we do not see an obstacle to informational or experimental publication of other solutions, as long as there is sufficient energy in the working group to deal with those.  Also, only documents for which there is at least one implementation will be progressed this way.

Thank you,
Bruno, Jim, and Joel

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring



_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring